Thurman#1

Greatly disagree with what you say would happen if we switched QBs. IMO you put Burrow in here and we maybe lose 1 or 2 more games than we did. I don't think Burrow has been the problem in Cincy, except of course the year he was injured. He's on a relatively poor roster. He's damn good. Not as good as Josh, but damn good. And if you put Josh in that Cincy lineup they win 1 or 2 more games. Their offense is not their problem, 6th in the league in scoring and 9th in yards last year, while we were 2nd in scoring and 10th in yards. I do agree, though, that signing both these two WRs is not a good move. IMO they should have re-signed Chase and let Higgins go, and take the comp pick. And worked on the OL and the defense.

Yeah, and since football is only a three-person game, the Bengals will doubtless win every Super Bowl out there. Oh, wait, you mean there are more than three on the field? Josh isn't taking Shakir and Palmer. He's taking the whole roster. Which is superior to the Bengals. The Bengals had Chase and Higgins last year. How many playoff games did they win?

You're acting as if the numbers you have gathered are objective proof of how good the roster is. They are not. All of them are subjective, All Pro, Pro Bowl and Top 100. They're all votes, all of them. As such, they're subjective, a compilation of opinions. And there are some obvious problems with the results. Just one example is that according to the Top 100 list, 15 of the top 100 players in the league are QBs. That's absurd. Especially as according to the last top 100 list, Aaron Rodgers is a top 100 player. This came before the 2024 season, but he hasn't been a top 100 guy in several years. But he's a QB and he's famous. 20 of the top 100 list are WRs. Again, absurd. In contrast, 2 of the top 100 are guards, 7 are OTs and 0 are centers. In other words, 9 OLs are among the top 100 best players, while 15 QBs make it, including Aaron Rodgers, Tua Tagovailoa, Kirk Cousins, Brock Purdy and Dak Prescott. Not only that, but only 4 CBs made it. It's about fame and about positional value rather than about being great players. So if you've got a damn good OL, as we do, you're not likely to come out of it seeing results in the top 100, particularly if people can say that your QB's few sacks come from running away well. And Pro Bowls and All Pro at least try to include all positions, but there are still major flaws. Very rarely do slot corners get named at CB, for example. Taron Johnson's never made a Pro Bowl, for instance. Ridiculous, but true. All of those stats are swayed by fame and recognition. Super Bowl winning teams will always be over-represented the next year. More, teams that have great units, particularly great OLs will often not get rewarded commensurately. Games are won in the trenches, but glory, fame and individual honors not so much. And teams with an "everybody eats" strategy will be hurt by that in all of these measures even if they are one of the absolute best and most productive offenses in the league. No stars equals no mentions on your measurements here. Bottom line, it's Josh Allen. And Sean McDermott. And Brandon Beane. All doing their jobs very well. McDermott gets them to play well as a team despite a relative lack of glory for many. And Beane brings in guys who will thrive in that kind of environment despite having to deal with extremely low draft picks year after year and the QB's second contract taking up a very high percentage of the team's cap. Despite Josh's willingness to take less than he is actually worth, he's still really expensive.

A holdout? In his FOURTH year? That's not going to happen. In his fifth, if they tag him? Yeah, maybe. And the Bills have him if you look at it differently. They could extend him this offseason or during the year. If they don't and he gets a serious injury, he'd lose out on a lot of money. There's no big rush. IMO it'll happen reasonably soon, without friction. He easily could. As Gunner pointed out, he's good in man too. He's just good. The question is the concussions.

No, once you've paid the guy his bonus you ABSOLUTELY have to charge all of that money against the cap. Even if you cut him when he had void years that money will still hit the cap. You can delay putting it on the cap depending on the situation, but you can NOT get out of putting that money against the cap. When a player with void years is cut - or traded - those void years become dead cap money.

You can't get out of void years. Void years are just a way to push bonus money that you've already paid further down the road. And once you've paid a guy his bonus, there's no way to avoid that money from hitting the cap sooner or later. Void years just allow it to be later. This is what it looks like to me.

Yeah, I loved him before the draft. He hasn't lived up to my hopes. But he ought to be a good gimmick guy occasionally and maybe a returner as well.

Once they spent the money on Joshua Palmer, I think that Amari was going to be out of reach. At least unless he finds very little market indeed.

Mmmm. No. In his last 18 starts he had 9 sacks. Which isn't bad at all. But not 14. The other 5 sacks came in games he did not start. So if you want to talk about the 14 sacks, they came in 28 games. Both of those come out at 1 sack every 2 games, which would be 8.5 sacks if he plays all 17 games. How would we feel, if he also pressures at a commensurate rate? I wouldn't mind, but I wouldn't be thrilled. If we managed 4 playoff games, that would come to 2 sacks, which would not thrill me. Of course, there's more to it than sacks, lots more.

I don't think anyone can argue with his career numbers. When healthy and young the guy was an absolute monster. The question is recent production and most particularly future production. Hope it turns out well. It might.

On Shout they said those two were both were offering him around $8M. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2bsNFv6Epc Around minute 19. If true, that's how.

Personally, I think you really can fault him for trying. He's supposed to do more than try. He's supposed to try intelligently. I don't like this. It could be good, and I'm praying that I'm wrong. That much time injured, and we spend $12M? Too much for me. I haven't seen the doctor's reports, and presumably the Bills have. So, maybe he'll be terrific. Jeez, I hope so. But I hear people saying they don't lose anything if it doesn't work out, and to say that you have to think that $12M is nothing. And to me, it's a lot. It's good that it's a one-year deal, that does lower the risk, but $12M is not nothing. It's $12M you can't spend on someone else.

Hell yeah he is. The top nine CB contracts, ranked on AAV, are already $20M or higher. He already fits as a top nine guy. And the number at $20M or up will be a lot higher very soon. If they don't sign him, they won't have a guy on either side who you'd want as your #1 on either side. I don't see any rush, but they should extend him sometime this year if it's at all reasonable / possible. Note: injury is a concern. They should - obviously - listen to their doctors before making any moves like this.

This would be a good point if the only money left was this money. But that ain't so. They could still sign Cook or Benford, maybe even both, having already signed Hoecht and Palmer. Hell, having signed these two, Benford and Cook WILL be on the roster in 2025. It just isn't a one-or-the other decision. Not even close. Want Cook or Benford or both? Fine. The Hoecht and Palmer signings don't affect that. Either way.

I don't understand the Irish part of this, but I'm still feeling very good about this even though I never expected anything else to happen.

Wow, hadn't noticed that at all. Love it.

We get it. Folks wanted a guy who was already a #1, and hopefully a true #1 like Metcalf. Those guys are too expensive for Beane's plan. And many will say, "Well, then it's a bad plan, we need a #1." But we don't. We were a terrific offense last year. Terrific, with the receivers we had. But pretty much an average defense. That's where we need most of the work. Palmer is an upgrade, with the kind of ability to get deep that we don't have now, and the ability to get separation that we don't have enough of. He's a good move. And we were never going to spend megabucks on a receiver this year. Too many needs on defense, particularly the need to develop a serious pass rush.

Haven't the slightest doubt that Cook's agents will have your exact same POV on this matter. But the teams will say, "did you run for 2000 yards? No? Fair enough, but somewhere close, right? No? Well, then why should I give you anything close? Yeah he got production at a historic level. You very much did not." If the contract you suggest here is what Cook demands, my guess is he'll have to find another team to give it to him, and it won't be as easy for him as he thinks. If that historic Barkley contract did change things, my guess is it might possibly change Cook's possibilities from around $10M to around, maybe, $12M. Cook doesn't compare to Barkley, he just doesn't. Again, the only guys above about $12M are workhorse backs. Cook is not that guy. He's a guy you need to supplement with a 3rd down back and a short yardage guy.

You say that Cook wouldn't accept the 12 million a year contract here, "not after Barkley is making 20+ a year now. Not how it works in the NFL," and I think you're correct right up till the last few words. Why would Cook settle for only 60% of what Barkley is getting? Well, Barkley had 2283 yards from scrimmage this year and Cook had 1267. So, 55.5%. Barkley had 801 snaps and Cook had 485. So Cook had 60.4% of the snaps Barkley had. Sorry, man, this is exactly how it works in the NFL and the world. You get about 60% of the snaps and about 55% of the production and you get about 60% of the money per year? That's exactly how things work. Barkley is a workhorse back. Cook is a very fine back, but he is not a workhorse. Someone might pay more, but compared to Barkley, that $12M is not at all unreasonable for Cook. When you look at the three highest paid RBs in AAV, the guys more than a fraction above $12M, they are all workhorses.

They should extend both of them - - if the terms are reasonable. It begins to look like Cook won't settle for reasonable terms. Which is his right. But no, we shouldn't extend him at $15M AAV, or close. No huge rush, but if there's mutuality soon, that would be great.

Spotrac estimated him at $25M. https://www.spotrac.com/news/_/id/2652/nfl-contract-extension-candidates This isn't an overpay. It's a risk. They all are, but this is maybe a bit more than most. My guess is that if they put a few more dangerous guys on the other end at DE and in the middle, Rousseau suddenly "improves."

Jeez, this is amazing. Three core guys to be here a long time, all of them at surprisingly reasonable costs as we bring them in early. Really really hoping that making the finances clearer in this way allows them to bring back Benford as well. What this does financially is nicely eliminate some unknown and clear up the whole situation. I am loving this.

First, take another look. That's now TWO pure mistakes you've made, within like a page. I didn't insult you. I insulted your opinion. And just to repeat, the reason that I called your opinion dumb, is that it's dumb. So, when you say, referring to my post, "they go to personal insults," you're wrong. And when you say, "they can't just talk about the subject, wrong again. I guess being wrong so consistently could be said to apply to the quality of the posters, possibly. But that would be you saying that, not me. And yet again, you are seriously mis-using the word second-rate. Again, if you check the dictionary, you might possibly at the very least change the way you expressed yourself there. Because, again, saying that the Bills GM, the Bills coach, and the Bills roster are "second-rate" is just dumbage. See what I did there, yet again? I insulted an opinion.

Again, buy yourself a dictionary. You are completely misusing the phrase "second-rate." It doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. Calling the Bills coach, GM or roster second-rate is just pure dumbage. Says a ton more about you than it does about the Bills. Claiming that it's ridiculous to call it all excellent, as you did in another post here? Much more reasonable. Worth having a discussion about. Calling it all second-rate, though? Just dumb.

More trolling? *snore*